February 24, 2004
Time for a Constitutional Change
I think it is time for a change in our constitution, for too long have the powers of the majority to oppress the minorities of this nation prevailed. It is time to press for a constitutional amendment that denies any majority in this nation the right to oppress by means of law or custom the equal rights of any minority.
Is that amendment ridiculous? Of course it is! The Constitution already prohibits such acts of oppression; we don’t need an amendment to sanctify that purpose of our great legal guide. I think that casting gay marriage as a constitutional issue makes less sense than the anti-oppression amendment posed above. Where does the constitution address marriage at all? Have I missed a clause somewhere? It seems to me the point of most of the Constitution was to define the limits of the powers of our Federal Government and the rest was spent on defining its structure. Marriage was largely an issue of church at the time our venerable document was written, and the states only lightly touched on its structure early in our Nation’s life.
Common Law was our guide in those times much as it was in England, and our structure of government in the individual states followed those principles as much as they followed the new Constitution. The interest of the Federal Government in marriage is hard to find in any legal sense. There are over one thousand legal benefits to marriage under the federal law but no Federal Laws restricting marriage entered our legal system until 1996. The Federal Law in fact neglected marriage as a social institution toward which it had any interest except that of support until 1996. A Federal Law directly discriminating against gay marriage was then passed and signed into law by that well known Conservative William Jefferson Clinton. That law does everything the proposed Constitutional Amendment could accomplish if the text proposed by the current sponsors of that Amendment is passed unchanged. So here we are with an election year reprise of the gay bashing that occurred in the 1996 election period. Obviously it didn’t work to unseat Bill Clinton and it won’t work to prevent the election of John Kerry either.
By the way the requirement for passage by three fourths of the state legislatures of any constitutional amendment makes the final passage of this ridiculous anti homo law unlikely. It is a transparent attempt to change the subject of this election from the failures of this administration to the evils of homosexual sex. God bless Karl Rove and his no limits grasp of the end justifies the means politics. I hope the disgust of the citizens of this country for blatant discrimination without a purpose overcomes this cynical abuse of our Constitution. Our Constitution is the finest document ever constructed around the purpose of limiting the powers of a central government; this cynical political ploy can only be seen as a deliberate abuse of the most sacred law of our land. God bless you all and keep you all safe from any abuse of our document designed to protect us all from any majority running amuck with the power of the Federal Government!
Posted by Henri Reynard at February 24, 2004 07:43 PMThis is of course, a purely political ploy. With one announcement Bush 1) tries to tie Kerry from Ma. with his pro-stance on Civil Unions to anti-hetero marriage definition, 2)launches a hot button emotional issue to consume the time and attention of the media and voters and pull attention away from his revised poor job growth numbers, and the drip, drip, drip, of American blood in Iraq caused by the biggest hoax and deception every committed in my memory by a President upon the American people. And lastly 3) It attempts to shore up his ultra conservative base which is upset with his deficits, the exporting of American jobs, and Bush’s ‘It’s not an Amnesty’ amnesty program for illegals.
Has Rove fingerprints all over it as you pointed out Henri.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2004 09:00 PMI have to disagree with one minor point. If this amendment makes it to the states, it’s as good as passed. All that is required to pass a given state is a simple majority of either the state legislature or the people, depending on what Congress decides. Usually, it is the state legislature, and I’m afraid that 3/4 of the state legislatures would vote to pass just such an amendment.
I think that this amendment, if it makes it out of committee, will pass in the House, but fail in the Senate.
Posted by: Robert Grebel at February 24, 2004 09:01 PMIn its current form, it is reported 38 states already have or are working on state bills of the same kind. That is already one state more than the 75% required.
Good call Robert.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2004 11:37 PMWhat about Ahnold’s proposal to amend the Constitution so immigrants can run for President? It is like Donald Trump calling for an amendment to restore the King and designate himself to be the first. Good one gov’.
Trump wouldn’t be king — Bush already thinks he is king.
Posted by: blipsman at February 25, 2004 10:44 AMDiscusion, debate and eventual Constitutional amendment is necessary on the issue of States Rights. Centralization of power in Washington was necessary for ending segregation and creating some equality in voting.
This centralization has been used, necessarily but unconstitutionaly, for National Standards for commercial competitiveness. But in fact, has been used in all and any issue (seatbelts, limits on State environmental standards, freguent flyer milage rights, abortion, and perhaps gay marriage issues, etc).
Congress passes “Exemplary Legislation” and States are forced to conform by the threat of loss of unrelated funding. No attempt to challange this process as extortionary has been brought to Court.
What centralization is needed should be passed by Consitutional amendment. What is best operated at the local level? This debate is needed now.
Posted by: Michael Paiewonsky at February 25, 2004 06:39 PMOnce again the LIBERALS get it wrong. I agree that CIVIL UNIONS are the answer. To say that now we need to change the definition of marriage to include Homosexuals is a farce. Today we have jailed men for more than one wife ( UTAH ) I’m sure he would want multiple partners included in the text of your rant for the protection of his monority FACTION of LIFESTYLE.Marriage today means the same thing it meant in centuries past to change it now seems silly. I guess Democratic values and Morals dont mean much these days because we wish to rewrite definitions to suit activities some find okay today. When a serving President feels it’s okay to tell young girls thatORAL sex isn’st sex I see the LIBERALS searching to REDEFINE sex.. Today comma sense can deal with this issue fine by making civil unions equal to the act of marriage without causing an uproar on the Right. But activist courts and Mayors have FORCED the issue..I guess we know where it goes from here ( Supreme Court )
Posted by: Rock at February 26, 2004 08:45 PM
